↓ Skip to main content

Auditing sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) content in medical school curriculum: a student scholar model

Overview of attention for article published in Biology of Sex Differences, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Auditing sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) content in medical school curriculum: a student scholar model
Published in
Biology of Sex Differences, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13293-016-0102-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael M. Song, Betsy G. Jones, Robert A. Casanova

Abstract

Sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) aims to (1) delineate and investigate sex- and gender-based differences in health, disease, and response to treatment and (2) apply that knowledge to clinical care to improve the health of both women and men. However, the integration of SGBM into medical school curricula is often haphazard and poorly defined; schools often do not know the current status of SGBM content in their curricula, even if they are committed to addressing gaps and improving SGBM delivery. Therefore, complete auditing and accounting of SGBM content in the existing medical school curriculum is necessary to determine the baseline status and prepare for successful integration of SGBM content into that curriculum. A review of course syllabi and lecture objectives as well as a targeted data analysis of the Curriculum Management and Information Tool (CurrMIT) were completed prior to a real-time curriculum audit. Subsequently, six "student scholars," three first-year and three second-year medical students, were recruited and trained to audit the first 2 years of the medical school curriculum for SGBM content, thus completing an audit for both of the pre-clinical years simultaneously. A qualitative analysis and a post-audit comparative analysis were completed to assess the level of SGBM instruction at our institution. The review of syllabi and the CurrMIT data analysis did not generate a meaningful catalogue of SGBM content in the curriculum; most of the content identified specifically targeted women's or men's health topics and not sex- or gender-based differences. The real-time student audit of the existing curriculum at Texas Tech revealed that most of the SGBM material was focused on the physiological/anatomical sex differences or gender differences in disease prevalence, with minimal coverage of sex- or gender-based differences in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and outcomes. The real-time student scholar audit was effective in identifying SGBM content in the existing medical school curriculum that was not possible with a retrospective review of course syllabi and lecture objectives or curriculum databases such as the CurrMIT. The audit results revealed the need for improved efforts to teach SGBM topics in our school's pre-clinical curriculum.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Lecturer 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2023.
All research outputs
#6,659,732
of 23,942,830 outputs
Outputs from Biology of Sex Differences
#233
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,651
of 323,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology of Sex Differences
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,942,830 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.